Learning lessons from non‐work related learning

Abstract

Recent official papers and reports credit employee development (initiatives which offer employees of an organisation opportunities to undertake non‐work related learning of their choice) as a vehicle for stimulating and promoting ideas of continuous education and lifelong learning. Commentaries such as these contribute to what is defined as an “orthodox” account of ED. In sum the orthodoxy promotes ED on the basis that by promoting learning and flexibility such initiatives contribute to organisational effectiveness and competitiveness. However, the orthodox account is inscribed with two fundamental flaws. The first is theoretical in kind, and concerns the under‐development of its central concepts. The second is of a more practical kind, and refers to the management of ED. The argument is illustrated with reference to both existing data and our own empirical work. The conclusion attempts to develop a more rational justification for ED, suggesting that support for such initiatives represents an ethical imperative. States that in a democratic society the workplace should be regulated in a democratic fashion. ED deserves to be sponsored in so far as it contributes towards this process of “democratisation”

Organisational learning in a public sector organisation: a case study in muddled thinking

“…Formal learning, in delivered programmes at all levels, is still the more usual format for achieving this. Less usual, but not uncommon, are employee led development (ELD) programmes; EDAP type initiatives in non-work related learning (Holden and Hamblett, 1998;Hamblett and Holden, 2000). Each of these is typically offered at different levels in the organisation.…”

Learning organizations, employee development and learning representative schemes in the UK and New Zealand

“…Forrester (2001, p. 322) points out that employees' participation depends on whether there are local, informal advice and support provisions. Holden and Hamblett (1998a; see also Holden and Hamblett, 1998b, p. 112) also argue that employee development schemes are often: under-resourced; prone to capture by different levels of manager; largely utilized by people who are not wholly non-traditional learners; and sources of employee cynicism because the schemes cannot be divorced from the broader employment relations that both create insecurity of tenure for employees and result in a succession of short-lived schemes designed to increase employees' engagement in exploitative relationships. It is, thus, not surprising that it has been argued more generally that workplace learning is not a neutral process, but may bring disparate benefits or costs for either employers or employees (e.g., Bryson et al, 2006, p. 284).…”

“…A recent OECD (2005) report examined learning in 17 different countriesincluding New Zealand (NZ) and the UK -and found inequalities in participation in adult learning within nations. Such patterns also appear in alleged "learning organizations" and those offering employment development schemes (e.g., Holden and Hamblett, 1998a). Given the limits to economic arguments for extending workplace learning, it may be that stronger arguments for increasing learning opportunities may be made on non-economic, democratic grounds (Holden and Hamblett, 1998a;Forrester, 2001, p. 325).…”

“…Such patterns also appear in alleged "learning organizations" and those offering employment development schemes (e.g., Holden and Hamblett, 1998a). Given the limits to economic arguments for extending workplace learning, it may be that stronger arguments for increasing learning opportunities may be made on non-economic, democratic grounds (Holden and Hamblett, 1998a;Forrester, 2001, p. 325). Involvement of labour movements that have a long history of promoting learning for its own sake (Sawchuk, 2003) may provide a means to extend workplace learning opportunities.…”

Employee‐led development: another piece of left luggage?

“…It is this promise which has made ELD particularly attractive to a broad constituency of parties concerned to promote the practice of human resource development. Because the claims made for ELD are strong, and because those who make them represent a constituency that is at once, broad and internally cohesive, we have argued that it is possible to speak of an``orthodox account'' (Hamblett and Holden, 1998;Holden and Hamblett, 1998).…”